I've changed my mind about Gnosticism (Jesus, Creator, gospel, Kingdom)

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Darkness

I have been fascinated with Gnosticism for a while. Perhaps it is the way it blends "paganism" with "monotheism."

I'm of the opinion that Paul did that masterfully.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Well, if you decide to make it pragmatic there's at least one extant pre-Christian Gnostic religion that you could join (if you hurry as the Iraqi Muslims seem to be doing their best to wipe them out), assuming they accept converts - the Mandaeans.

James

Protestant Christianity is Gnostic enough for me.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Mandeanism cannot be dated before the third century CE. Karen King, in her book What is Gnosticism, points out that the three scholars who dated Mandeanism early could not read the langauge of the late manuscripts and this seriously hampered their ability to understand and date it.

But this is the problem you have with almost all religions, including Christianity. In the beginnings of these faiths it is often very hard to find hard evidence that proves they existed and this is certainly the case especially so with syncretic cults like the Gnostic ones. Many of the themes of Mandaean belief certainly pre-date Christianity as they are found in other expressions of dualist Persian faith - whether you choose to call such Mandaean, proto-Mandaean or something else is a judgement call. This insistance on beuing able to verifiably date something, it seems to me, is part of the reason you are having difficulty accepting that Gnosticism pre-dates Christinaity.

James

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Protestant Christianity is Gnostic enough for me.

Well, I'd actually agree with you to an extent on that - except that I'd say that it's too Gnostic for me.

James

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

And there we must disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by Gniosticism, though. You seem to be suggesting that if it doesn't have some of the accidentals such as a full-blown cosmology like that of Valentinus (which is overwhelmingly pre-Christian Greek) that it isn't Gnosticism. Thing is that the Gnostic cults, as well as being syncretic, were also often radically different from one another. The common denominator is an elitest mystery cult with secret knowledge as the basis for salvation. Such certainly pre-exists Christianity, there is no question.

James

I'm not sure that this is the common denomenator of the Nag Hammadi texts - which is what the OP implies. The earliest Gnostic document - Gospel of Thomas - makes no sense at all without the cosmology, and it does not include the elitest concept that secret knowledge is the basis of salvation. The connection to other Gnostic documents is the cosmology and not elements that scholars previously used to characterize pre-Christian Gnosticism in various parts of the ancient world.

EDIT: Where the Nag Hammadi texts differ in cosmology or myth, they also differ in elitist secret knowledge and the role of salvation.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

So, has this changed you pragmatically, or is it purely intellectual in nature?

Ok, I give. It's purely intellectual.

Well, as intellectual as I can get.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I'm not sure that this is the common denomenator of the Nag Hammadi texts - which is what the OP implies. The earliest Gnostic document - Gospel of Thomas - makes no sense at all without the cosmology, and it does not include the elitest concept that secret knowledge is the basis of salvation. The connection to other Gnostic documents is the cosmology and not elements that scholars previously used to characterize pre-Christian Gnosticism in various parts of the ancient world.

EDIT: Where the Nag Hammadi texts differ in cosmology or myth, they also differ in elitist secret knowledge and the role of salvation.

Well I actually said the common denominator of the Gnostic cults, not the texts, and you know as well as I do that the beliefs of a group are not necessarily obvious solely from a perusal of their scripture and that it is quite possible to interpret texts in ways that are not obvious to a modern reader. I fail to se how the cosmology can be a common factor, though, given the wildly differing cosmologies of different groups. I'd have once said that dualism was a common factor but I no longer believe that is the case and so I can only really see the secret knowledge (Gnosis) and hence the elitism as being common factors. This is probably a good indication, however, that the idea of Gnosticism is, in reigion, a ragtag catch all type of an idea much as schizophrenia is in psychiatry - more a cetegoraisation for several different but superficially related phenomena than a unified whole.

James